Exactly. The meaning is very specific and if whatever follows isn’t true, then why throw it in there? Is the phrase “I thought my head was going to explode” not hyperbolic enough without adding “literally”? Obviously I’m not going to be confused by what you mean, I’m just going to know you don’t know what the word means.
This one. Great thread.
As Richard Pearse posted right after you, people are not using “literally” to mean “figuratively.”
I also don’t see where the dictionary is claiming “literally” now also means “figuratively” as the title in the article in the OP says it does.
From the article:
Followed by this:
I don’t think the article’s author is paying attention.
The passage you’re referring to:
“Literally” isn’t being used as “figuratively”; it’s being used to intensify a hyperbolic expression.
This is the heart of the problem. The correct meaning of literal is “despite the fact that what I’m saying sounds like a lie used for effect, it is actually true”. If you then add a secondary meaning of “this is just a lie for effect” then you’ve lost the original meaning. So I don’t see how you can say the correct meaning is the same as the incorrect meaning.
Which is what I said: people are just adding random syllables to what they’re saying.
No, what you said does not match what I said.
The immediate meaning of the word is the same. It doesn’t mean “figuratively”, it still means “the following is actually true”. However the word “literally” has itself become part of the lie, so yes the overall meaning of the sentence differs depending on whether “literally” is included in the lie or not, but the meaning of the word itself doesn’t change anymore than the meaning of the word “cat” changes when used as a discription of rain fall.
Put it this way, when I say “it is literally raining cats and dogs” I want you to parse that as “the following is true, cats and dogs are falling from the sky.” I also want you to realise that the whole thing is actually not true.
Using “literally” in the “wrong” way is not something I do and I am in fact likely to jokingly pick someone up on it, but I can’t think of any time I have actually been confused by its use in that sense. When I call people on it, it is for the sake of a couple of cheap laughs, and because it can be fun picking apart the words people use in conversation. I am also very literally minded and when people use metaphors I immediately visualise a literal interpretation a split second before I pick up the intended meaning. This means I can be very quick to make fun of the words people use at times if I want to but I can also easily choose not to be an obtuse dick and go along with what I know the speaker is intending to convey.
On reflection, I think using “literally” in the figurative sense is a useful way of rejuvenating a tired metaphor.
Consider the phrase “it’s blowing dogs off chains” for a windy day. The first time you hear it you will probably visualise a labrador or similar getting blown across the ground with its snapped dog chain trailing along behind and you might have a little giggle. Hear the phrase enough though and you stop visualizing the dog and you just picture it being windy. The phrase has become worn out. You can give some life back to it by saying “it was literally blowing dogs off chains out there today” and forcing the listener to picture the dog again as you challenge them to mentally question whether or not you are joking.
If what I said isn’t true then explain the difference between “it’s literally raining cats and dogs” and “it’s fucking raining cats and dogs” - neither word is being used in their original sense. They’re both being used as intensifiers.
So which one indicates a greater amount of rain? If the words have meaning as intensifiers then one or the other must indicate a greater intensification. Or perhaps there’s some other distinction in meaning between the two. So tell us what it is.
If not, then acknowledge that these words don’t have real meanings. Their only function as intensifiers is that they add syllables to the sentence. They have no distinct meaning in themselves and are interchangeable.
Isn’t it obvious? In the first sentence “literally” has a legitimate meaning in context, “the following is true”, in the second sentence it’s just some vulgarity that has no particular meaning other than to add some emotion. They are not the same and can’t be compared as one being more intense than the other.
It’s a losing battle Little Nemo, no matter how hard you fight against it. Look deep within yourself and see that you don’t literally find it confusing, you only pretend to for the sake of pedantry.
I don’t have to explain the difference. You said that you said the same thing as me. You didn’t. Adding an intensifier isn’t the same as adding random syllables.
Why is it up to me to tell you if “fucking” is a greater or lesser intensifier than “literally”? I think Richard’s post above me is right; “fucking” is more about emotion. Richard gave exactly what you’re asking for in post 35.
Not sure what you mean by “real” meaning and I don’t care if they’re interchangeable. A lot of words are. If you are intensifying something, the word isn’t going to add more information such as “it’s raining furry cats and dogs” would.
I think everything needing to be said on this topic got said in the previous thread. People who object to the intensifier use of “literally” tend not to understand linguistics at the most basic level. They also never, ever object to “really” and “truly” when used the same way.
It’s something of a weird shibboleth, equivalent to objecting to split infinitives: it’s intended to demonstrate that the complainer is one of those sooper smart language elites who’s better than the unwashed masses, but what it really demonstrates is that the complainer hasn’t thought the issue through very carefully.
Maybe someone will find this interesting, but I’m from Eastern Europe and our word for “literally” has also evolved much in the same way to mean “figuratively” very similar to its English counterpart. So it might even be a global thing.
I suspect it’s a human thing. Intensifiers (and their opposite, downtoners), are a moderately-to-extremely important part of language. Words that suggest something is happening in truth lend themselves effectively to double-duty as an intensifier: really, truly, actually, literally, seriously, etc. It makes sense that this would happen in different unrelated languages.
Wait. Are saying that when somebody says “it’s literally raining cats and dogs” you think that they’re making a statement that actual cats and dogs are falling out of the sky? Because I don’t think that’s the case. While I agree that that would be the correct use of literally in that sentence, I think most people who actually say it are using “raining cats and dogs” as a metaphor and what’s actually falling down are normal drops of water.
Because you’re the one saying the word has a meaning when used as an intensifier. So tell us what that meaning is.
If I say “it is raining” and “it is snowing” then I’m communicating two different words in two different messages. The words raining and snowing have different meanings, I’m aware of those different meanings, and I choose the word which matches the message I want to communicate.
Same thing if I say “it is raining” or “it was raining” - different words, different meanings.
Now compare that to “it’s literally raining cats and dogs” and “it’s fucking raining cats and dogs”. What is the difference in meaning between these two statements that is conveyed by the use of the different words?
Yep, and then, in addition, you are expected to recognise that the entire statement including the word “literally” is a lie. But within the context of the lie, “literally” is being used to mean “the following is true.”
As should be obvious, I strongly disagree. I find that the people who don’t understand why this matters are the ones who don’t understand language. Because they only have a vague understanding of the subject, they assume the subject itself is vague.
It’s like somebody who doesn’t understand physics thinking that an electron and an atom are pretty much the same thing. An actual physicist might come along and try to argue the point and explain what the difference is between the two. But the person would say “Ahh, you’re just nitpicking. They’re both too small to see so for all practical purposes they’re the same thing. The difference between them doesn’t matter to me so it must not be important.”
So you’re saying a word which you acknowledge means “the following is true” should be understood to mean “the following is a lie”?
No. It means “the following is true”. You should recognize the entire statement is a lie though.